Realism
Qexugir
pernicious?
I am referring not to naive realism, which is really innocence, but to
the claim that there is a hidden, underlying reality that informs
appearances.
If reality is hidden, then appearances are false, which means that the
world lies to us, and is in fact based on deception. That's what I find
pernicious, because it's one hell of a way to look at things.
This is a significant question, because the doctrine of realism is the
foundation of science and scientific thinking, and science and
technology have largely shaped the world we live in today.
I call realism a doctrine rather than anything else because it is, in
today's minds, so deeply buried under a dozen levels of assumptions and
presumptions that it is at best an article of faith, and the believers
staunchly defend it by clean and dirty means.
I don't have the brains to come up with a better way of looking at
things, but it seems to me that realism has got to go.
All input welcome.
Qexugir
John Jones
individual it is not the ACT of overturning a stone to
look underneath that is reality, but what lies
underneath.
But what lies underneath is no more or less real than
what is already seen.
JJ
Qexugir <ust...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3DC74998...@sympatico.ca...
James Winter
Qexugir wrote:
>
> Is it only me, or do other people find the doctrine of realism
> pernicious?
>
> I am referring not to naive realism, which is really innocence, but to
> the claim that there is a hidden, underlying reality that informs
> appearances.
>
> If reality is hidden, then appearances are false, which means that the
> world lies to us, and is in fact based on deception.
Are you referring to a view like Locke's nominalism, or to a view that
unobservable entities are not real? Which version of 'realism' are you
talking about?
I've never had the world lie to me once. Other people, yes. The world,
no. Who/what exactly is doing the lying here?
That's what I find
> pernicious, because it's one hell of a way to look at things.
Ok, but why do you think it's wrong?
>
> This is a significant question, because the doctrine of realism is the
> foundation of science and scientific thinking, and science and
> technology have largely shaped the world we live in today.
>
> I call realism a doctrine rather than anything else because it is, in
> today's minds, so deeply buried under a dozen levels of assumptions and
> presumptions that it is at best an article of faith, and the believers
> staunchly defend it by clean and dirty means.
You might want to say a bit about the presumptions and assumptions so
there is something to talk about.
Lougren
individual's subjective view. I would say there are several realities. My
financial situation is my economic reality. The financial situation of the
enterprise I work in is its economic reality which in part also is mine
because it affects my financial situation.
To be realistic about my financial situation could be called "I practise
realism". However, it is not really interesting that I practise anything. My
interest lies in being realistic vis-à-vis my situation.
lougren
Qexugir <ust...@sympatico.ca> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:3DC74998...@sympatico.ca...
Qexugir
John Jones wrote:
> Science and realism like to think that for an
> individual it is not the ACT of overturning a stone to
> look underneath that is reality, but what lies
> underneath.
> But what lies underneath is no more or less real than
> what is already seen.
> JJ
Your analogy is close, but not quite bang on. What is underneath a
stone is still part of our world - it is a thing separate from the stone
itself. The atoms that make up the stone are, supposedly, the reality
of that stone, while what we see as the stone is, again supposedly, a
mere appearance. This appearance is alleged to be deceptive - for
example, the stone is made up of several atoms while seeming to be a
single thing, the atoms are of various types while the stone, let's say,
seems to be made up of one thing, there is empty space between the atoms
while the stone seems solid. The inescapable conclusion is that,
according to realism, the appearance of the stone is a lie - and so, if
you go through the many possible examples, is pretty well everything
that presents itself to us, on appearance, as what it is.
It isn't a huge jump from that to the claim that the world lies to us
with its appearances and conceals its truths. That's what I find
objectionable.
Qexugir
Qexugir
James Winter wrote:
> Are you referring to a view like Locke's nominalism, or to a view that
> unobservable entities are not real? Which version of 'realism' are you
> talking about?
Please see my reply to John Jones under his header, "Realism, reality,
science". It should help explain what I am talking about.
The difference between nominalism and the other view you mention is a piddling
internal difference. Both are more similar than they are different from each
other, and their alleged differences obscure the much larger difference from
other possible views.
> I've never had the world lie to me once. Other people, yes. The world,
> no. Who/what exactly is doing the lying here?
Please see the message referred to above. It would be rude of me to type the
same thing twice in different messages.
> Ok, but why do you think it's wrong?
I'll address that once I've heard back from you in the other thread referred
to above. I have a feeling the answer to that question will be obvious once
my meaning is clear.
Qexugir
John Jones
The object under the stone is no more or less real than
something seen, like the stone. Just because it is
hidden, does not make it any more significant.
I will retype it.news:3DC9344E...@sympatico.ca...
James Winter
Qexugir wrote:
>
> John Jones wrote:
>
> > Science and realism like to think that for an
> > individual it is not the ACT of overturning a stone to
> > look underneath that is reality, but what lies
> > underneath.
> > But what lies underneath is no more or less real than
> > what is already seen.
> > JJ
>
> Your analogy is close, but not quite bang on. What is underneath a
> stone is still part of our world - it is a thing separate from the stone
> itself. The atoms that make up the stone are, supposedly, the reality
> of that stone,
What does this mean? "The atoms are the reality of the stone." Better
to just be clear about what you are saying. I could interpret this
phrase many different ways. What sort of anti-realism, specifically,
do you find objectionable?
while what we see as the stone is, again supposedly, a
> mere appearance.
If the view is that what we see of the stone is mere appearance, I
wouldn't think the atoms are on firmer ground on most anti-realist
views. Anti-realism in the philosophy of science about non-observable
entities would mean it's the atoms that aren't real, not the stone.
This appearance is alleged to be deceptive - for
> example, the stone is made up of several atoms while seeming to be a
> single thing, the atoms are of various types while the stone, let's say,
> seems to be made up of one thing, there is empty space between the atoms
> while the stone seems solid. The inescapable conclusion is that,
> according to realism, the appearance of the stone is a lie -
One has to fill in a lot of details before one can reach the conclusion
that one is deceived in attributing certain macroscopic features to the stone.
Lougren
your senses - that feeling or sensation that you yourself as individual
experience also lies under the stone. To look. To see. To find. To unravel.
To loose. To keep. To remember. etc etc.
The concepts of realism, reality and science are valuable only if you
include yourself as taking part in it all. Your theories and theoretical
argumentation about the stone or what is underneath becomes too clinical and
consequently not interesting and of no practical or realistic use.
lougren
James Winter <win...@humnet.ucla.edu> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:3DC9DEFA...@humnet.ucla.edu...
James Winter
Lougren wrote:
>
> When looking underneath the stone you make a discovery and you sense through
> your senses - that feeling or sensation that you yourself as individual
> experience also lies under the stone.
I can't make sense of what it means to say that 'my sensation lies under the
stone'. A sensation is something a sensate or sentient being experiences,
and experiences cannot lie under stones.
To look. To see. To find. To unravel.
> To loose. (To 'lose'?) To keep. To remember. etc etc.
>
> The concepts of realism, reality and science are valuable only if you
> include yourself as taking part in it all. Your theories and theoretical
> argumentation about the stone or what is underneath becomes too clinical and
> consequently not interesting and of no practical or realistic use.
You like speaking in vague generalities, I see. Never mind then.
Lougren
lougren
James Winter <win...@humnet.ucla.edu> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:3DCAB8A3...@humnet.ucla.edu...
Qexugir
James Winter wrote:
> Qexugir wrote:
> >
> > Your analogy is close, but not quite bang on. What is underneath a
> > stone is still part of our world - it is a thing separate from the stone
> > itself. The atoms that make up the stone are, supposedly, the reality
> > of that stone,
>
> What does this mean? "The atoms are the reality of the stone." Better
> to just be clear about what you are saying. I could interpret this
> phrase many different ways. What sort of anti-realism, specifically,
> do you find objectionable?
I haven't said a word about "anti-realism", whatever that is. It took me a while to
remember the established name of the doctrine I'm talking about, but it's called
critical realism. Part of its definition is that reality is an underlying
substratum covered over by appearances. I've inferred from that basic piece of
doctrine to the statement that reality is hidden, and appearances are false.
My example of the stone, borrowed from that other poster, relies on established
scientific perspective. After all, critical realism as I've described it underpins
science. Scientifically, a stone is not a stone: it is a collection of various
atoms with empty space between them. Yet what we, as people, experience is not
atoms but a stone. The differences between the scientific perspective and the human
perspective, I've already enumerated in part - the stone is one thing, while the
atoms are many things; the stone is made up of one thing, while there are many
different kinds of atoms making it up; and the stone is solid, while there is empty
space between the atoms. From the scientific perspective, the appearance of the
stone is definitely false.
My objection is that, ultimately, critical realism tells us that *all* appearances
are false. Since we live in a world of appearances, it means that our whole world
is claimed to be false. Since both appearance and underlying substratum is part of
what is, the inference is that what-is deceives us. Here, I want to move away from
the blind worship of incumbent perspectives, which says, "But it's been proven that
the world is made of atoms, so what-is does deceive us". From the point of view of
seeking a way of looking at things that fulfils us and makes us good human beings,
the belief that the world is a liar is destructive and pernicious. We need a new
and different one.
> while what we see as the stone is, again supposedly, a
> > mere appearance.
>
> If the view is that what we see of the stone is mere appearance, I
> wouldn't think the atoms are on firmer ground on most anti-realist
> views. Anti-realism in the philosophy of science about non-observable
> entities would mean it's the atoms that aren't real, not the stone.
You keep talking about "anti-realism" when I'm trying to discuss realism. At least
please define what you mean by "anti-realism" and how it even remotely relates to
the topics we're discussing. I don't want to be uncharitable, but it sounds like a
deliberate red herring or straw man you're just throwing in.
> This appearance is alleged to be deceptive - for
> > example, the stone is made up of several atoms while seeming to be a
> > single thing, the atoms are of various types while the stone, let's say,
> > seems to be made up of one thing, there is empty space between the atoms
> > while the stone seems solid. The inescapable conclusion is that,
> > according to realism, the appearance of the stone is a lie -
>
> One has to fill in a lot of details before one can reach the conclusion
> that one is deceived in attributing certain macroscopic features to the stone.
Please define "macroscopic features". I can't see how, if the stone is really a
bunch of variegated atoms with empty space between them, the appearance of a single
monolithic solid object can be taken as a property or extension of the reality.
Qexugir
Qexugir
John Jones wrote:
> No, I meant:
> The object under the stone is no more or less real than
> something seen, like the stone. Just because it is
> hidden, does not make it any more significant.
> I will retype it.
I think I understood what you said. All I was saying is that I had a
better example of what *I* was trying to say.
Most people would be saying that the object under the stone is no *less*
real than the stone. Please tell me what you mean by it being taken as
more significant.
Qexugir
JusUK
deliberately but your limited senses and processing power mean you must
percieve things in symbolic ways rather than as they really are. Without
telescopic eyes with macro lenses you cannot percieve all the little atoms
and even if you had such eyes your brain could not cope with all the
information these eyes could deliver, it would be swamped. I am thankful to
say I have equally poor eyesight and glad to report my own managably sized
brain as I find these perfectly adequate for my normal day-to-day life.
Fortunately if I require microscopic vision I can use a special tool, a
microscope, which is also cool, and supercomputers, though less portable
than my brain, are able to cope with a lot more useless information.
Qexugir
JusUK wrote:
You are assuming that the world really is made of atoms, and that what we see
as non-atoms is deceptive. The idea you present is the "organs of limitation"
idea, which I've heard before, and which sounds like some scientist who
happened to be a decent human being was trying to deal with a bad conscience
about science.
Qexugir
JusUK
Do you mean me? JusUK
>
Qexugir
JusUK wrote:
> > You are assuming that the world really is made of atoms, and that what we
> see
> > as non-atoms is deceptive. The idea you present is the "organs of
> limitation"
> > idea, which I've heard before, and which sounds like some scientist who
> > happened to be a decent human being was trying to deal with a bad
> conscience
> > about science.
> >
>
> Do you mean me? JusUK
Not at all. I meant whoever first came up with the "organs of limitation"
concept.
Qexugir